Car vs. Bike crashes and injuries etc.

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 09:19

You notice and hear about a lot more injuries and fatalities with bikers right and it scares you. Yet the other day when we all heard about the fatal crash with the biker and the truck, on that same day a father and daughter died in a car that crashed into a tractor!

Yes motorbikes are dangerous and we should be very careful etc, but there are so many car crashes even fatal ones each week now that they are barely mentioned in the news or anything! Yet I'm sure most if not all cage drivers do not feel any fear when they step into their car.

Almost all drink driving crashes and deaths are car crashes, due to us bikers knowing that even 2 or less drinks causes a massive reduction in riding ability. Car accidents usually involve a few if not several injuries or deaths as opposed to the typical biker crash involving one.

I just wonder whether biking is actually as dangerous and "death-defying" as it's made out to be, just because we have a biker forum we hear about each and every crash and because the news makes a big deal of it. When in reality WAY more people are hurt in cars but it's just not aired cause it happens so often!

I would love some basic statistics in terms of fatal crash rates based on the number of people killed in proportion with the number of bikes/cars on the road, but I'm too lazy to go through the ltsa stats which I find too hard/boring to read through the lines... Gimme a bar graph which each bar is already scaled in terms of proportion of bikes etc outta all road users! Would be interesting to see what the verdict is.

EDIT : Check down for some stats.... although how these stats are perceived could vary depending what the surveys are based on.

**Nagash** · 25th February 2008, 09:52

Just personal opinion but it does make alot of sense that Motorbike accidents are more fatal than car accidents.

We have virtually zero protection from impact, (Leather's not gonna make a car crashing into you any less painful) we tend to drive faster or take bigger risks, if we do get in an accident there's a high chance the cager didn't even see us so didn't even attempt to slow down. We're alot more out in the open really..

I reckon motorbike accidents are reported more because they're usually alot more serious than, for example, whip lash from a seat belt. Also, there's a hell of alot more cars than motorbikes but I get where you're coming from with the percentage thing, could be interesting but I reckon the percentage of accidents will be higher for cars because basically everyone drives a car. The skilled and the unskilled.

I think it takes a level of passion to drive a motorbike and therefore are interested in improving your skills, maybe not but I know that I make the effort to improve my riding skills. (gotta turn up to more AWNR's..)

So yeah.. under all that rambling my point is that I reckon, in personal opinion, motorbike accidents are more fatal than car accidents. And more cars crash in ratio to motorbikes.

Cheers,

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 09:59

Yeah definitely the ratio of deaths per crashes are higher for bikers as I guess in reality it doesn't take all that much compared with the protection of a car. And there are thousand of "crashes" each week in cars which involve just a tiny collision maybe a few dents here and there.

It's hard to word what stats I'd be after lol but I'll try, hmmm, the number of fatal crashes (actually number of fatalities) for cars and for bikes in proportion to what percentage of road users they take up. Since some car accidents cause anywhere between 1 and I dunno maybe 5 deaths, I think the stats would be pretty interesting!

**Badjelly** · 25th February 2008, 10:11

Originally Posted by Ragingrob

I would love some basic statistics in terms of fatal crash rates based on the number of people killed in proportion with the number of bikes/cars on the road, but I'm too lazy to go through the ltsa stats which I find too hard/boring to read through the lines... Gimme a bar graph which each bar is already scaled in terms of proportion of bikes etc outta all road users! Would be interesting to see what the verdict is.

I waited a bit before replying because I was hoping that there would be no replies at all.

For heavens sake, you lazy bugger, stop asking other people to draw you bar graphs and, if you actually want to make a difference, get off your bum and analyse the stats yourself.

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 10:20

Hmmm well here's some stats but doesn't relate in percentage of road users, I'll see what I could find. Just thought I'd start up the thread anyway in case someone had the stats

WHAT THE HELL I SPACED IT ALL OUT BUT IT DOESN'T WANNA, sorry!

Casualty Types (fatal)
2005 2006 2007
Drivers 202 192 201
Passengers 123 107 118
Motor Cycle Riders 34 35 37
Motor Cycle Pillions 3 3 4
Pedestrians 31 44 46
Pedal Cyclists 12 9 12
Other - 3 4
Unknown - - -
TOTAL 405 393 422

Apparently we make up 2% of the road users in NZ, I'm not sure how much cars make up...

My brain's dead after 4 months holiday anyway

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 10:28

Here's an interested study in the UK

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D4031.xls

Motorbikes consist of 17% of deaths, whereas cars consist of 50%.

Again it's hard to judge due to not knowing the car to bike ratio on the road.

**AllanB** · 25th February 2008, 10:33

Well said Nagash.

I ride my bike faster and take higher risks on it than in my car.

I won't touch alcohol at all when on the bike, but I restrict myself to a couple of drinks max with a meal over an evening when in the car.

What would be most interresting is stats for:
A. rider at fault motorcycle accidents (shit fucked up that corner!).
B. second party at fault motorcycle accidents (ie hit by a car).

**Badjelly** · 25th February 2008, 10:44

Originally Posted by Badjelly

...get off your bum and analyse the stats yourself.

Taking my own advice...

Are you aware of this Ragingrob?

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/...et-July-07.pdf

It starts with

The New Zealand Travel Survey indicates that, on average, the risk of being involved in a fatal or injury crash is more than 14 times higher for a motorcyclist as for a car driver over the same distance travelled.

and I would presume that, once in a fatal or injury crash, a motocyclist's chance of serious injury or death would be higher than a car occupant's.

**MacD** · 25th February 2008, 10:51

Originally Posted by Ragingrob

I would love some basic statistics in terms of fatal crash rates based on the number of people killed in proportion with the number of bikes/cars on the road, but I'm too lazy to go through the ltsa stats which I find too hard/boring to read through the lines... Gimme a bar graph which each bar is already scaled in terms of proportion of bikes etc outta all road users! Would be interesting to see what the verdict is.

All this is available at the Ministry of Transport Research site.

The MoT even produce a Motorcycle-specific Crash Statistics publication.

The usual figure given is that motorcyclists are around 14 times more likely to be involved in an injury or fatal accident than a car driver for the same distance travelled.

Motorcycling is a risky passtime. Understanding the risks is one of the best things you can do for your own self-preservation.

In 2006, 38 motorcyclists were killed. That's one every 9.5 days on average. It's not surprising we see newspaper reports or RIP threads on KB as often as we do.

(edit: Beaten to it by BadJelly!)

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 10:52

A fatal or injury crash? What's an injury? Dropping the bike on your foot? Low siding and getting a sore bum? And it's only related to a car driver too, what about the 4 passengers that die at the same time.

Not arguing with you, lol just stats in general is pretty bullshit anyway, there's no right or wrong answer and it all depends on how every little survey is conducted etc.

**MSTRS:Me** · 25th February 2008, 10:54

Originally Posted by AllanB

What would be most interresting is stats for:
A. rider at fault motorcycle accidents (shit fucked up that corner!).
B. second party at fault motorcycle accidents (ie hit by a car).

There is a thread somewhere on here (a Katman one, I think) that gives those stats...
Basically, IIRC m/c at fault entirely was around the 35% mark, the rest was varying degrees of shared responsibility...although around half of those were no fault of the biker, but s/he could have done something to avoid the collision.

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 10:57

Originally Posted by MacD

All this is available at the Ministry of Transport Research site.

The MoT even produce a Motorcycle-specific Crash Statistcs publication.

The usual figure given is that motorcyclists are around 14 times more likely to be involved in an injury or fatal accident than a car driver for the same distance travelled.

Motorcycling is a risky pastime. Understanding the risks is one of the best things you can do for your own self-preservation.

In 2006, 38 motorcyclists were killed. That's one every 9.5 days on average. It's not surprising we see newspaper reports or RIP threads on KB as often as we do.

(edit: Beaten to it by BadJelly!)

Damn it lol the stats pages keep "not respoding" on my comp and freeze up...

How many drivers were killed? Surely it's average to one every 2 days or so!

**Badjelly** · 25th February 2008, 11:00

Originally Posted by Ragingrob

Not arguing with you, lol just stats in general is pretty bullshit anyway, there's no right or wrong answer and it all depends on how every little survey is conducted etc.

So why did you start the thread?

And I'm curious, in what way do you think "In 2006, 38 motorcyclists were killed" is pretty bullshit, there's no right or wrong answer and it all depends...?

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 11:07

Originally Posted by Badjelly

So why did you start the thread?

And I'm curious, in what way do you think "In 2006, 38 motorcyclists were killed" is pretty bullshit, there's no right or wrong answer and it all depends...?

No I'm talking about the stats which are in terms of "injuries", what defines and injury? And in saying that it's only in terms of the actual car driver, not including passengers who die too. I'm looking for stats which involve how many deaths of motorcyclists in ratio with deaths of car occupants, all in ratio of how many cars and bikes in terms of road users.

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 11:08

Originally Posted by Badjelly

Taking my own advice...

Are you aware of this Ragingrob?

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/...et-July-07.pdf

It starts with

and I would presume that, once in a fatal or injury crash, a motocyclist's chance of serious injury or death would be higher than a car occupant's.

You say occupants when it's only talking about the driver... This is where stats go wrong.